There are 2 reasons I didn't write about the conventions. First: I have nothing to contribute. Everything l could say has been said, and better, by other bloggers, some of which are actually there. Second: I couldn't care less about the conventions. This is the first time I've been more than dimly aware of them, and I don't think I missed much.
I think the problem is mainly that I don't care about partisanship. I don't care what tribe you're in so much as what you stand for. If a Democrat called for (and supported, as shown by his record) lower taxes, reduced discretionary spending, and more liberty of all kinds (ideally starting with a repeal of McCain-Feingold), then I'd vote for him. And since both the Democrats and the Republicans hold to essentially the same beliefs on most of the issues I care about (both of them standing on the wrong side all too often), then I'm not terribly enthusiastic about watching the two candidates/parties bash each other. "He lied about being in Vietnam!"/"He lied about the War on Terrorism!"; "He wasn't in Cambodia when he said he was!"/"He didn't show up for his National Guard Service!"; "He's a flip-flopper!" (as if this is, by necessity a bad thing--if you'r'e wrong, change your mind rather than hanging onto wrong opinions!) /"No, he is!" And on, and on, and on it goes. Goodness, I hate elections.
Look, the only issue that matters to this election is national security. On that issue, Kerry falls short, based on his record, not on personal attacks about where he was or wasn't in 'Nam or on his personal courage or lack thereof during his four months on the swift boats. On the other hand, Bush has supported our military as he's called them into battle, and the military knows it and is grateful. He's conducted the War on Terrorism pretty well, although there'll always be room for improvement. Bush has proven that can handle the War on Terror.
That's why I plan to vote for Bush. However, it's about the only reason. He and I disagree on most domestic issues. (McCain-Feingold Monstrosity again, spending, even gay marriage.) Frankly, if 9/11 hadn't happened, I'd vote for the Constitution Party candidate or something. But like I said, national security is the only thing that matters this election.
I don't care about the parties slinging mud at each other or cheerleading for themselves. I'd much prefer a rational discussion of individual issues to a frenzied crowd of true believers for either side. Hopefully thoughtful debate will come back after the election.
Posted by Blog Jones at September 5, 2004 01:13 AM
| Category: Politics
Right. So the guy who didn't serve overseas is gonna be better than the guy who did. The guy who had never left the country before he became president is going to be better than the guy who had. The guy who wanted to cut veteran's benefits is better qualified to be commander in chief than the guy who wouldn't. Right.
As if Kerry's going to be soft on terror or something. As if Kerry's just gonna go lay down in the corner, curl up into the fetal position and hope the terorist's go away. He's not an idiot, you know. Bush's success on national security is an utter fiction: It's too early to tell if anything this administration has done has been successful, and you can't say he's done any better than Gore would've or Kerry (hopefully) will.
As far as Bush's success on national security being utter fiction goes, I'd have to disagree with you. We took out a potential threat that was actively seeking nuclear weapons. Furthermore, we haven't been attacked on our soil since ramping up our security after 9/11.
On the other hand, I'd say Kerry isn't decisive enough to effectively handle a war on terror, as he voted for the war and against the $87 billion to fund it, etc. Again, others have taken on this issue, and have had more time and interest to study it, than I have. (Just read Instapundit!)
It would also help if Kerry would stop ignoring the strategic situation, i.e. our nation's allies in Iraq that Bush keeps listing.
Posted by: Blog Jones at September 8, 2004 07:54 PMThe fact that there's not been another attack on US soil since 9/11 is irrleevent. Al Qaeda took a decade to plan 9/11. There *will* be another attack on US soil, regardless of who's president.
If you only read Instapundit, you're only getting half the story (oe less). Kerry's explained the so-called voting "flip flop" - if you only pay attention to the conservative pundits, of course, you're going to think him indecisive.
Here's a metaphor: you promise me certain goods (the $87 billion package). When you deliver the goods, they aren't as described/don't properly meet my needs. I tell you I'm no longer interested in buying them. Did I flip flop? No. I just exercised judgment. That's what Kerry did. Many other sentors thought the same but didn't have the guts to vote differently.
Posted by: Bob at September 8, 2004 11:05 PMTo be honest, I don't understand how it takes a decade and lots of money to figure out how to get a couple of dozen guys onto US soil, get them to hijack airplanes, and fly them into buildings. It seems like a simple enough plan to me, but what do I know? I'm not a terrorist.
Anyways, you're right about the decade planning thing. I shouldn't have brought up the "no attack on our soil" point. But, if, as you say, we will be attacked again, regardless of who's the sitting president, I trust that if that attack should happen during Bush's presidency, that you won't blame him or his administration for it and call for his impeachment or any of that. After all, it's inevitable that we'll be attacked again, so it doesn't matter who the president is!
Re: Instapundit: Instapundit is not a conservative blog. Among other things, he's pro-gay marriage, against the war on drugs, pro-choice, and for stem-cell research. He's only conservative in the sense that he was for the war in Iraq and believes that we're doing the region good there.
Re: $87 Billion; the analogy might be better compared to the construction of a house. At one point you order it's construction, saying spend "whatever number of billions of dollars it takes." After the house is built, all of a sudden you're no longer interested in paying for the labor that went into it, even though you agreed to the plan upfront.
Anyways, I'm not sure why I'm agruing politics at almost midnight when I need to get up at 5:30 in the morning. Time to look into buying some of that "Adrenaline Rush" stuff.
Posted by: Blog Jones at September 8, 2004 11:48 PMYour analogy for the house is inaccurate, though. For it to be accurate, you'd have to say 1. Yes, I agree we need to build the house. 2. Show me the plans. 3. No, I'm not building according to those plans 4. Show me a new plan and we'll build the house.
In other words, you assume Kerry knew the details of the package in advance when he didn't. He wasn't against spending money on Iraq or our military. He was against spending it improperly--from his POV--which he has every right to. It's ONLY GOP/conservative spin which tried to make it look like a flipflop at all.
You're right about Instapundit; I guess he's more libertarian than conservative, but he's still to the right. The point is: on matters of Iraq policy you're not going to get the full picture on his site. I just think everyone, liberal or conservative and everything in between should be consulting an array of news/information outlets and not just cocooning themselves within outlets which share their perspective. Not accusing you of that BTW, but it's an all-too-common practice. Which is why Fox's "Fair and Balanced" nonsense is such a misnomer. It's a shelter for knee-jerk conservatives, not a balanced news outlet.
Finally, no I wouldn't blame Bush for another attack on US soil. I didn't blam ehim for the first. Don't make the knee-jerk assumption that because I'm coming from left of center that I'm rank and file with Michael Moore and other who are *actually* extreme, not typical left wingers. I said another attack will happen regardless of who's president and it will. Few people would argue with that. Hoopefully, we can prevent a nuclear atack in th efuture, but we can't prevent every attack. The genie's out of the bottle. Period. We can only determine what our reaction will be and that's where this administration's failed woefully by taking us into Iraq, when we should have maintained a laser-like focus on Afghanistan and Al Qaeda.
How many times did you hear Osama Bin Laden mentioned at the RNC? Saddam & Iraq? The whole thing screams misplaced priorities.
This administration--even if re-elected--will eventually be seen as a massive mistake, a huge reactionary blot on America's history. Just talk to the average citizen of any other country outside of America to see how the proceedings are already being intepreted there. Then wait for our own country to finally wake up and smell the coffee.
Good luck with your studies, Blog Jones. I mean you no personal animus. I'm just outraged by this administration and I like to stir things up--I think it'd be dishonorable *not* to. And it doesn't hurt to hear another point of view, does it? Besides, I went to Bob Jones myself, so I know people can change when they're exposed to alternative opinions. ;)
Posted by: Bob at September 9, 2004 01:33 PMWhich liberal blogs would you recommend? I'm usually only exposed to the far-left extremist types (Michael Moore, MoveOn.org, IndyMedia) and not the more reasonable types.
And I'm sorry if I sounded accusative when I asked if you'd blame Bush for a second attack; I didn't mean it that way. I just have this fear that if/when the next attack comes people are going to blame Bush personally for it, instead of blaming the radical Islamic terrorists who would actually plan and carry out the attack. That would be counter-productive at best.
Anyways, I didn't watch much of the RNC; I just didn't care. The only difference that I've been able to see lately between the Democrats and the Republicans is national defense, and I already knew where the Republicans stood on that. :-)
Yeah, I know; I'm not taking anything personally, and I bear you no ill will. Just friendly debate from all sides.
Posted by: Blog Jones at September 9, 2004 06:40 PMIf you haven't already, give Kevin Drum's blog a try - yes, you'll find folks in the comments who are very lefty, but Kevin's usually very civil and when he makes a mistake about something, he corrects himself immediately:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com